Justice v. Stevens et al, No. 2:2020cv00356 - Document 6 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the Plaintiff's Complaint; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 4/5/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Justice v. Stevens et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION HOWARD LEE JUSTICE, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00356 CO STEVENS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Howard Lee Justice, Jr.’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) By standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on May 22, 2020, (ECF No. 3), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley entered his PF&R on March 14, 2022, recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), as well as pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent Plaintiff is pursuing state law negligence claims. (ECF No. 5.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Dockets.Justia.com Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on March 31, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objection in response to the PF&R, thus constituting a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 5), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), as well as pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent Plaintiff is pursuing state law negligence claims. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 April 5, 2022
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
